New Age-prevalent or p***e?

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

dave52_47: It may have but that doesn't mean that Judaism has it's roots in Zoroastrianism.

A connection is probably a better word. Oral traditions have always preceded the writings. There are annals about the Mesopotamia flood that are older than the book of Genesis. And with the same similarities. Even the book of Genesis contain two sets of traditions, The Yahveistic and the Elohistic. Two narratives about the creation and the flood in the same book.

Your ****ogy breaks down with the Catholicism & Protestantism example you give. If you look back at the early church you will find the roots of protestantism which pre-dates Roman Catholicism.

Protestantism has borrowed many things from Catholicism. That is not a surprise and this happens in any schismatic occurrence.

Concerning the Early Church I recommend the reading of the Fathers of the Church and particularly the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. There was not protestants in the Antiquity.

Catholicism did not create Protestantism. Christianity does have it's roots in Judaism but the last chapter is not written in Judaism yet.

Protestantism has his roots in Catholicism because protestants accept easily the seven Universal Councils and the canon of the Catholic Church.

When Jesus is received as the Messiah, which according to even Jewish prophecy will happen in the future, then it will be Christian, just as it was with the disciples who were all Jewish - as was their Messiah. It is not one religion evolving into another form-but the fulfillment of God's plan of redemption.

I never used the word "evolution" in my posts. This is your perception. When two cultures or civilizations or religions clash, it is normal to see things amalgamating. Greeks, Romans and Arabs have contributed largely to the build of the western world.

Curiously, if I examine the systematic dispensationalism I can also say that the revelation knew many changes (i.e. with the distinctive covenants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc).However, this is not my thought.

Note that he is saying that the "devil' is "perverting the truth" denying that Christianity owes it's origin to Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. And I haven't said there were no similarities -only that it does not prove that Christianity
"borrowed" from it to establish their own religion. You tend to see all religion as evolutionary. I don't.

I agree with you and that was the Tertullian perception in that time. However, notice also that they believed that the devil anticipated the future and that he had foreknowledge of God plan. On this I can disagree with Tertullian.

You'll have to elaborate some on this one. It's not all that clear to me what exactly you are saying.

C.S. Lewis and even J.R.R. Tolkien his good friend. Both had seen the myths as something that is not fairy tales (ex: Heinrich Schliemann had found the city of Troy with the help of Homer poems about the epic of lliad). In brief, there is truths in myths.

Here I suggest "The Power of the Myth" by Joseph Campbell.

I guess you'll have to read it again. I don't know how you could miss it. He does agree that some similarities exist. He also quotes "post-christian" sources as the origin of some of these. You haven't commented on these sources? I'll wait on your reply.

There is sources BC also, and many. The oral sources and also scriptures as the hieroglyphs and the cuneiform had preceded Jesus. There is similarities with the Horus life too (Egypt).

Trinity

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Hello Dave,



A connection is probably a better word. Oral traditions have always preceded the writings. There are annals about the Mesopotamia flood that are older than the book of Genesis. And with the same similarities. Even the book of Genesis contain two sets of traditions, The Yahveistic and the Elohistic. Two narratives about the creation and the flood in the same book.



Protestantism has borrowed many things from Catholicism. That is not a surprise and this happens in any schismatic occurrence.

Concerning the Early Church I recommend the reading of the Fathers of the Church and particularly the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. There was not protestants in the Antiquity.



Protestantism has his roots in Catholicism because protestants accept easily the seven Universal Councils and the canon of the Catholic Church.



I never used the word "evolution" in my posts. This is your perception. When two cultures or civilizations or religions clash, it is normal to see things amalgamating. Greeks, Romans and Arabs have contributed largely to the build of the western world.

Curiously, if I examine the systematic dispensationalism I can also say that the revelation knew many changes (i.e. with the distinctive covenants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc).However, this is not my thought.



I agree with you and that was the Tertullian perception in that time. However, notice also that they believed that the devil anticipated the future and that he had foreknowledge of God plan. On this I can disagree with Tertullian.



C.S. Lewis and even J.R.R. Tolkien his good friend. Both had seen the myths as something that is not fairy tales (ex: Heinrich Schliemann had found the city of Troy with the help of Homer poems about the epic of lliad). In brief, there is truths in myths.

Here I suggest "The Power of the Myth" by Joseph Campbell.



There is sources BC also, and many. The oral sources and also scriptures as the hieroglyphs and the cuneiform had preceded Jesus. There is similarities with the Horus life too (Egypt).

Trinity

Trinity,
What exactly is your point about the similarities? All I can see from what you are saying is that there are some things in some religions that are like some things in other religions? What does all this prove? And what does it have to do with the OP of this thread?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by dave52_47

Trinity,
What exactly is your point about the similarities? All I can see from what you are saying is that there are some things in some religions that are like some things in other religions? What does all this prove? And what does it have to do with the OP of this thread?

Into all serious Universities the program of the first cycle in theology (Baccalaureate) includes a course on compared religions. Also, anyone can do a major in Religious Studies. One of my sons has a Baccalaureate in Religious Studies from the University of Ottawa.

That proves that Mahomet had also borrowed from the Judaism and Christianity. That was his raw material to reinvent the faith.

I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.

That also proves that God is disclosing himself but men interpret these revelations with the help of the human language and by their world representation.

The relation with this thread and the New Age Movement is obvious. There is nothing new under the sun.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Into all serious Universities the program of the first cycle in theology (Baccalaureate) includes a course on compared religions. Also, anyone can do a major in Religious Studies. One of my sons has a Baccalaureate in Religious Studies from the University of Ottawa.

That proves that Mahomet had also borrowed from the Judaism and Christianity. That was his raw material to reinvent the faith.

I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.

That also proves that God is disclosing himself but men interpret these revelations with the help of the human language and by their world representation.

The relation with this thread and the New Age Movement is obvious. There is nothing new under the sun.

Trinity

Trinity,
I will reply to your your 'pagan source theory' first and in a separate post I will reply to the statement that the Christian 'hell' is a greek concept. It's a rather lenghty reply but I thought that it was worth the time and effort to present this side of the argument:

First of all Christians have nothing to fear about the comparisons that are made concerning Zoroastrianism, Mithra, etc, and Christianity and the similarities between them. I did the research after your first post and have found that besides the fact that the author of this theory (that Christianity must have been derived from Mithraism) is a Muslim (Yousuf Saleem Chishti) who is hardly unbiased towards Christianity; but he also believed that the doctrines of the Diety of Christ and the Atonement were pagan teachings- which he attributed to the Apostle Paul- as well as the Doctrine of the Trinity to paganism endorsed by the church fathers. I will begin with this quote:

“Mithraism". Some contemporary critics of Christianity argue that this religion is not based in divine revelation but was borrowed from mystery religions, such as Mithraism. Muslim author Yousuf Saleem Chishti attributes such doctrines as the deity of Christ and the atonement to the pagan teachings of the Apostle Paul and the doctrine of the Trinity to pagan formulations of the church Fathers.

Pagan Source Theory. Chishti attempts to demonstrate a vast influence of mystery religions on Christianity, stating, “The Christian doctrine of atonement was greatly coloured by the influence of the mystery religions, especially Mithraism, which had its own son of God and virgin Mother, and crucifixion and resurrection after expiating for the sins of mankind and finally his ascension to the 7th heaven.” He adds, “If you study the teachings of Mithraism side by side with that of Christianity, you are sure to be amazed at the close affinity which is visible between them, so much so that many critics are constrained to conclude that Christianity is the facsimile or the second edition of Mithraism” (Chishti, 87).

Chishti lists some similarities between Christ and Mithra: Mithra was considered the son of God, he was a savior, he was born of a virgin, he had twelve disciples, he was crucified, he rose from the grave the third day, he atoned for the sins of humankind, and he returned to his father in heaven (ibid., 87–88).” (Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (490). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.)

To start with Paul did not teach a new religion or use existing mythology as sources for his teachings. The foundation of Christianity is built on the Old Testament, Judaism in general, and the life of a person named Jesus. If you study the Epistles and Gospels you will see that the sources of Paul's teachings on salvation were the O.T. and the teachings of Jesus.

Here are some comparisons of Jesus and Paul's teachings:

• Both taught that Christianity fulfilled Judaism.

-Jesus : "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets ; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17)
-Paul : "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4) "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regards to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Col. 2:16-17).

• Christianity taught that humans are sinful

.
-Jesus : "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them." (Mk. 3:28)
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins." (Jn. 8:24)
-Paul : ".. all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3-23).
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins." (Eph. 2:1)
"..Christ died for you sins according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3)

• Christianity taught that blood atonement is necessary.

-Jesus : "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mk. 10:45)
" This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)
-Paul : "In Him [Christ] we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Eph. 1:7)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Eph. 5:8) -(referring back to O.T. P***over, Paul said, "Christ, our P***over lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Cor. 5:7)

• Christianity's emphasis on Christ's resurrection.

-Jesus : "He told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day' " (Lk. 24:46)
"Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.. .But the temple he had spoken of was his body." (3n. 2:19,21)
-Paul : "He [Jesus] was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." (Rom. 4:25) -(belief in resurrection was essential to salvation) "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9)

• Christianity taught salvation by grace through faith.

-Jesus : "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." (Jn. 3:36; cf 3:16; 5:24; Mk. 1:15)
-Paul : "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8,9; cf ***us 3:5-7) (faith is credited as righteousness in Rom. 4:5)

It's pretty clear that Jesus is the source for Paul's teachings on salvation and that Christianity is rooted in Judaism-not Mithraism. Another important item for consideration is that Paul's message of the gospel was checked by and approved by the original apostles (Gal. 1-2)-giving his message official recognition that it was not opposed to that of Jesus Christ. (The charge that Paul corrupted Jesus' original message was answered years ago by J. Gresham Machen in The Origin of Paul's Religion and also F.F. Bruce in Paul and Jesus.)

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not have it's origins in paganism either, as has been promoted by this same school of thought. Pagan religions were Polytheistic and Pantheistic, but trinitarians are Monotheists. Trinitarians are not Tritheists who believe in three separate gods; they are monotheists who believe in one God manifested in three distinct persons.

Mithraism is based in myth. Christianity is based on a real historically verifiable person. Here is how Mithra was born:

'"... Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phyrgian cap. He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race." (Christianity and the Hellenistic World, Ronald Nash, 144)

Mithraism has no bodily resurrection.
Mithraism matured after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism.

To be sure there are similarities but that doesn't prove the connection you are alluding to. Not even close as the above proves. I'm sure that Jesus was not born out of a rock, fully clothed and armed at that-with a hat on.

It is just amazing that anyone could think that Christianity had it's origins in these Myths. Yes, a comparison can be made as you say, And I think that's a good idea-because the deeper you go into it the more unlike each other they become. In reality if you stood them side by side you would see the King and the pretender to the throne.

Dave

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

Originally Posted by dave52_47

Trinity,
I will reply to your 'pagan source theory' first and in a separate post I will reply to the statement that the Christian 'hell' is a greek concept. It's a rather lenghty reply but I thought that it was worth the time and effort to present this side of the argument:

Ok. No problem.

First of all Christians have nothing to fear about the comparisons that are made concerning Zoroastrianism, Mithra, etc, and Christianity and the similarities between them.

We agree on this. Similarities does not mean that it is the real thing, the right stuff. Chess, the checkers game or the Go game have some tactical similarities (ex: time, space and dynamic) but we have here three distinct games. Though this three games are board games invented by men. Men have an input on the creation and the development of the game rules. This is also true with all religions, including christianity. The human factor is everywhere (ex: without the authority of a council composed by men, we can not have a canon for the bible. A convention is necessary. You and me we never selected which book should be part of the bible. And the bible did not fall from the sky integrally as one book.)

I did the research after your first post and have found that besides the fact that the author of this theory (that Christianity must have been derived from Mithraism) is a Muslim (Yousuf Saleem Chishti) who is hardly unbiased towards Christianity;...

I do not know this guy, and I never heard about him.

“Mithraism". Some contemporary critics of Christianity argue that this religion is not based in divine revelation but was borrowed from mystery religions, such as Mithraism. Muslim author Yousuf Saleem Chishti attributes such doctrines as the deity of Christ and the atonement to the pagan teachings of the Apostle Paul and the doctrine of the Trinity to pagan formulations of the church Fathers.

Mithraism was a sect from the Zoroastrianism (1000-440 BCE). In brief, this new sect was only the prolongation of the old religion. They believed that Zoroaster was their founder, as the Mormons believe today that Jesus is the founder of their church.

Religion do not pop up from nothing, into the time and space.

Manichaeism and the Christian Manichaeism, also derived from the Mithraism.

To start with Paul did not teach a new religion or use existing mythology as sources for his teachings. The foundation of Christianity is built on the Old Testament, Judaism in general, and the life of a person named Jesus.

We agree. We agree. However, the eschatology, symbols, and the images of Judaism was influenced by other religions and cultures (i.e. ***yria, Babylon, Persia, Greek and Roman). Keep also in mind, before there were writings, there were oral traditions. Those traditions have met together and often. Throughout the caravans in the desert and by the migration of the nomads.

If you study the Epistles and Gospels you will see that the sources of Paul's teachings on salvation were the O.T. and the teachings of Jesus.

I have no problem with this. Jews have problems with this because they have a very different set of interpretations.

It's pretty clear that Jesus is the source for Paul's teachings on salvation and that Christianity is rooted in Judaism-not Mithraism.

I never mentioned the Mithraism, only the Zoroastrianism and in one occasion an example of similarities, from Egypt (Horus). Anyway, as mentioned above, the Mithraism derived from the Zoroastrianism. They exist because of the actions and beliefs from the past. All religions have siblings.

Catholicism---> Protestantiism---> Biblical fundamentalists---> Mormons---> ???

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not have it's origins in paganism either, as has been promoted by this same school of thought. Pagan religions were Polytheistic and Pantheistic, but trinitarians are Monotheists.

Hinduism have a similarity called "Trimurti", but this is not the same thing like the christian Trinity.

Trinitarians are not Tritheists who believe in three separate gods; they are monotheists who believe in one God manifested in three distinct persons.

I know.

Mithraism is based in myth. Christianity is based on a real historically verifiable person.

I believe so. There was a historical Jesus. No doubt.

However, there is also truths in the myths. They are images and symbolize things that have existed or virtues, or vices. JFK, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. are mythical heroes. They tattooed our collective imagination.

Here is how Mithra was born:

Here some informations about the life of Horus (Egypt).

Conception by a virgin.
Only begotten son of the God Osiris.
Mother = Meri or Miriam (a.k.a. Mary).
Father= Seb (Jo-Seph)
Of royal descent.
Birth location - in a cave.
Annunciation - by an angel.
Birth heralded by: The star Sirius, the morning star.
Birth date: Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (typically DEC-21).
Birth announcement: By angels.
Birth witnesses: Shepherds.
Later witnesses to birth: Three solar deities.
Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered.
Baptism location: In the river Erid****.
Age at baptism: 30
Baptized by: Anup the Baptiser.
Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded.
Temptation:Taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut. Sut (a.k.a. Set) was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan.
Result of temptation: Horus resists temptation.
Activities:Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power."
Raising of the dead: Horus raised Osirus, his dead father, from the grave.
Transfigured: On a mountain.
Method of death: By crucifixion.
Fate after death: Descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.
Resurrection announced by: Women.
Future: Reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.
And many more.

Mithraism matured after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism.

Mithraism is a branch of the Zoroastrianism, and Zoroastrianism has preceded the Judaism and the Christianity.

In every cultural or religious encountering between people or nations throughout the ages, there is always things that are amalgamated or borrowed to explain the inexplainable.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

Trinity,

Religion do not pop up from nothing, into the time and space.

You are right. Jesus was the founder of Christianity. He told Peter that He would build His church and "the gates of hell would not prevail against it." My problem with the "inclusion" of all of these 'rising savior' myths is that it denies the supernatural intervention of God the father, Jesus Christ after He ascended, and the Holy Spirit in the origin and building of this "body of Christ" as it was called. To say, or imply strongly, as you are continuing to do, that the origins of the church are in paganism because of 'similarities' between the two puts the church in a 'contrived', 'man-made' category, and denies that it was God's plan from the beginning. That's a serious a serious charge and it makes one wonder (if one were to believe such a thing) if Jesus is coming back for His 'bride'--the church, as scripture promise. That is the 'eschatological' significance (which you speak of in the next reply) of this line of thought. Either it was founded on Jesus Christ and built by the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles or it has no basis in God's plans for mankind. I would choose the former without blinking an eye.

We agree. We agree. However, the eschatology, symbols, and the images of Judaism was influenced by other religions and cultures (i.e. ***yria, Babylon, Persia, Greek and Roman). Keep also in mind, before there were writings, there were oral traditions. Those traditions have met together and often. Throughout the caravans in the desert and by the migration of the nomads.

I never mentioned the Mithraism, only the Zoroastrianism and in one occasion an example of similarities, from Egypt (Horus). Anyway, as mentioned above, the Mithraism derived from the Zoroastrianism. They exist because of the actions and beliefs from the past. All religions have siblings.

Catholicism---> Protestantiism---> Biblical fundamentalists---> Mormons---> ???

I would disagree with the last part. I said earlier that Protestanism wasn't born out of Catholicism. Protestantism had it's roots in 1st century Christianity. That's why I say that it actually preceded the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Are you showing a chronology of derivatives? You've really broadened your argument to the point where any religious group that has some semblance of Christianity in it is said to have been "spawned" by Christianity. You know there are some that claim to be Christian yet their doctrinal teachings are completely the opposite of Historic Christianity.

This is where you mentioned Mithraism:

That was not the opinion of Fathers of the Church as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr. Even for enemies of Christianity as Celsus.

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments...Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."
Tertullian, late 2nd century CE, commenting on the many similarities between Mithraism and Christianity.

Here is a quote from Justyn Martyr, Apology I, 2nd Century--(from The Kingdom of the Occult-Walter Martin, Jill Rische Martin, Kurt Van Gorden, p. 107):

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospel, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." (emphasis mine).

What a travesty! And this clearly shows that it was an imitation of a Christian practice that was established by Christ's example. It has no meaning otherwise. This was a men only religion that had a great appeal to the Roman army.

Here some informations about the life of Horus (Egypt).

Conception by a virgin.
Only begotten son of the God Osiris.
Mother = Meri or Miriam (a.k.a. Mary).
Father= Seb (Jo-Seph)
Of royal descent.
Birth location - in a cave.
Annunciation - by an angel.
Birth heralded by: The star Sirius, the morning star.
Birth date: Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (typically DEC-21).
Birth announcement: By angels.
Birth witnesses: Shepherds.
Later witnesses to birth: Three solar deities.
Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered.
Baptism location: In the river Erid****.
Age at baptism: 30
Baptized by: Anup the Baptiser.
Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded.
Temptation:Taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut. Sut (a.k.a. Set) was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan.
Result of temptation: Horus resists temptation.
Activities:Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power."
Raising of the dead: Horus raised Osirus, his dead father, from the grave.
Transfigured: On a mountain.
Method of death: By crucifixion.
Fate after death: Descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.
Resurrection announced by: Women.
Future: Reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.
And many more.

I'll answer what I can tonight. I researched this once but I don't have it at hand right now.

Osiris is the Son of Geb and Nut (earth & sky). He was torn into pieces and scattered around by his brother Set. He married his sister, Isis, (goddess of ferility, magic, and motherhood) and she gathered up the pieces and gave them to Egyptian embalmers and then he is resurrected. Osiris is a good daimon (demon), a created being who became a god. He was not born of a virgin and was one of many gods. We're talking polytheism big-time in Egyptian mythology. He was not God incarnate. He did not sacrifice for the sins of the world. He also later became a god of the underworld. His resurrection then, was spiritual--not physical. Hence, no salvation by grace through him. These are the parents of Horus. A demon who was elevated to godhood and a Goddess.

I wouldn't make too much of the winter solstice angle. Scripture doesn't state clearly that Jesus was born in the winter. There are several scholars who have suggested a spring birth. I surely don't have enough evidence one way or the other. An interesting note though: If He was born in the spring that would surely throw off the astrological charts based on His birth., i.e.; the beginning of the "piscean age".

• Are you equating the 3 "solar deities' with the wisemen?

Where is the evidence for a crucifixion? I'm not even sure that "crucifixion " was commonly practiced by the Egyptians. Could you cite a source on that?

I still don't see what this has to do with 'new age' except that the last time I encountered this "presumption" was on a 'new age ' forum on a different website.

Thanks for your patience waiting for replies back from me.

Dave

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

dave52_47: You are right. Jesus was the founder of Christianity. He told Peter that He would build His church and "the gates of hell would not prevail against it." My problem with the "inclusion" of all of these 'rising savior' myths is that it denies the supernatural intervention of God the father, Jesus Christ after He ascended, and the Holy Spirit in the origin and building of this "body of Christ" as it was called. To say, or imply strongly, as you are continuing to do, that the origins of the church are in paganism because of 'similarities' between the two puts the church in a 'contrived', 'man-made' category, and denies that it was God's plan from the beginning. That's a serious a serious charge and it makes one wonder (if one were to believe such a thing) if Jesus is coming back for His 'bride'--the church, as scripture promise. That is the 'eschatological' significance (which you speak of in the next reply) of this line of thought. Either it was founded on Jesus Christ and built by the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles or it has no basis in God's plans for mankind. I would choose the former without blinking an eye.

Both of us, we are agreeing that Jesus is the founder of the Christianity. Though I think that the religious phenomenon was also influenced by the human factor, imagination and perception, throughout the ages. That does not exclude God as factor, also. The parallels between those myths into a period of fifteen hundred years (BC and during the CE), is factual, and that can not be accidental. There are too much of those examples. Those similarities are not always identical but they are close. However, Jesus is the real thing in that maze.

I would disagree with the last part. I said earlier that Protestanism wasn't born out of Catholicism. Protestantism had it's roots in 1st century Christianity. That's why I say that it actually preceded the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Are you showing a chronology of derivatives? You've really broadened your argument to the point where any religious group that has some semblance of Christianity in it is said to have been "spawned" by Christianity. You know there are some that claim to be Christian yet their doctrinal teachings are completely the opposite of Historic Christianity.

Any religion has a development. This is not something that is static, but this is something who is alive. There is many Hinduism sects, same thing with the Muslim and the Judaism. Christianity is not different on this matter. Only in the United States you can count more than 35,000 denominations. And this is not the end of this exponential explosion about the belief in Christ.

This is where you mentioned Mithraism:

Thank you. It was an indirect allusion. I accept your correction. However and also, I mentioned later that Mithraism was only a branch of something much more older, the Zoroastrianism. Christianity came out of the Judaism and Mithraism came out of the Zoroastrianism. Said like this it should be more understandable.

Here is a quote from Justyn Martyr, Apology I, 2nd Century--(from The Kingdom of the Occult-Walter Martin, Jill Rische Martin, Kurt Van Gorden, p. 107):

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospel, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn." (emphasis mine).

What a travesty! And this clearly shows that it was an imitation of a Christian practice that was established by Christ's example. It has no meaning otherwise. This was a men only religion that had a great appeal to the Roman army.

For us, the first written account of the bread and wine ceremony can be found in Genesis 14 when Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham. However, the Zoroastrianism had also this kind of custom. We also had this story of the three wises men who searched the baby Jesus. Keep in mind that they were pagans but they also had some clues about his birth.

Osiris is the Son of Geb and Nut (earth & sky). He was torn into pieces and scattered around by his brother Set. He married his sister, Isis, (goddess of ferility, magic, and motherhood) and she gathered up the pieces and gave them to Egyptian embalmers and then he is resurrected. Osiris is a good daimon (demon), a created being who became a god. He was not born of a virgin and was one of many gods. We're talking polytheism big-time in Egyptian mythology. He was not God incarnate. He did not sacrifice for the sins of the world. He also later became a god of the underworld. His resurrection then, was spiritual--not physical. Hence, no salvation by grace through him. These are the parents of Horus. A demon who was elevated to godhood and a Goddess.

Yes, there are also distinctions. I never pretended that all stories were copied and totally identical. Some gods in the antiquity were only men. Greeks and Romans were good at this (demigods).

I wouldn't make too much of the winter solstice angle. Scripture doesn't state clearly that Jesus was born in the winter. There are several scholars who have suggested a spring birth. I surely don't have enough evidence one way or the other. An interesting note though: If He was born in the spring that would surely throw off the astrological charts based on His birth., i.e.; the beginning of the "piscean age".

And we will still celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 25th day of December. However, Jesus birth was possibly during the Autumn, late during this season. Not a time to sleep outside.

• Are you equating the 3 "solar deities' with the wisemen?

Not really. I am only comparing the two postulates. But the number three is fascinating, and the three wise men were astronomers.

Where is the evidence for a crucifixion? I'm not even sure that "crucifixion " was commonly practiced by the Egyptians. Could you cite a source on that?

I should have used the term "impalement". That was the kind of public execution everywhere, from Egypt to Babylon. Romans had only perfected this method. Jesus was not the only one who was crucified by the Romans.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Talah or 'ets (heb.)= hanging on a pole or stake.

"The Bible speaks also of hanging (Deut. xxi. 22), but, according to the rabbinical interpretation, not as a mode of execution, but rather of exposure after death (Sanh. vi. 4, 75b)."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...128&letter=C#0

I think the Sages wanted to soften the image of this kind of capital punishment.

I still don't see what this has to do with 'new age' except that the last time I encountered this "presumption" was on a 'new age ' forum on a different website.

The conversation turned in this direction because most of the the New Age beliefs came from the Eastern World. And this beliefs has nothing very new to give. An ashram Hindu in United States or an ashram in India is still an ashram.

Thanks for your patience waiting for replies back from me.

You are welcome.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Hello Dave,

Any religion has a development. This is not something that is static, but this is something who is alive. There is many Hinduism sects, same thing with the Muslim and the Judaism. Christianity is not different on this matter. Only in the United States you can count more than 35,000 denominations. And this is not the end of this exponential explosion about the belief in Christ.

I'm not saying that Christianity did not have development. I just question the 'pagan source theory' which intimates that Christianity was 'derived from', or 'stole' it's fundamental doctrines from, pagan religions dating all the way back to Egypt.

For us, the first written account of the bread and wine ceremony can be found in Genesis 14 when Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham. However, the Zoroastrianism had also this kind of custom. We also had this story of the three wises men who searched the baby Jesus. Keep in mind that they were pagans but they also had some clues about his birth.

For us the "bread and wine' of the last supper was more than just a ritual but has it's significance in the torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. To say that this was borrowed or adapted from earlier religions completely cheapens the true deeper meaning of the event, which was The severe price that He paid atoning for our sins.

Not really. I am only comparing the two postulates. But the number three is fascinating, and the three wise men were astronomers.

Meaning??? Numerology has no place in Christianity.

I should have used the term "impalement". That was the kind of public execution everywhere, from Egypt to Babylon. Romans had only perfected this method. Jesus was not the only one who was crucified by the Romans

.

Exactly. Crucifixion was the method preferred by the Romans. There is a word for impaling in the Greek. If it were intended to convey that point it would have been used instead of tree, or cross. "Hanging" on a stake or tree would be much closer to crucifixion than impalement.

I think the Sages wanted to soften the image of this kind of capital punishment.

I don't think it was softened at all. They were both horrible forms of death, especially when you consider the requisite beatings and floggings that preceded the actual execution. Besides, the Holy spirit was the inspiration for the record, not just man's point of view.

The conversation turned in this direction because most of the the New Age beliefs came from the Eastern World. And this beliefs has nothing very new to give. An ashram Hindu in United States or an ashram in India is still an ashram.

I agree with you here. Gnosticism has it's roots there and New age is built on gnostic beliefs as well as a huge dose of eastern mysticism.

So my question again is: "Is 'new age' p***e' or prevalent today?

Dave

[Trinity]

Hi Dave,

Originally Posted by dave52_47

I agree with you here. Gnosticism has it's roots there and New age is built on gnostic beliefs as well as a huge dose of eastern mysticism.

So my question again is: "Is 'new age' p***e' or prevalent today?

The New Age is prevalent today but his material came from the past. You have said that in your comment above, and I agree on this (gnostic beliefs and eastern mysticism). New things that are in reality old things.

I hope you will be patient with my English because this is not my usual language. Thank you.

Trinity

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

dave52_47 : I'm not saying that Christianity did not have development. I just question the 'pagan source theory' which intimates that Christianity was 'derived from', or 'stole' it's fundamental doctrines from, pagan religions dating all the way back to Egypt.

I am of the opinion that C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein are right. All other myths are a pale imitation of the true myth.

Christian mythologists such as C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien understood the narrative of Christ's sacrificial death of atonement for humanity as a "true myth" with the special property that it had been enacted historically in time and space. Lewis wrote, "The story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened." In this view, mythological predecessors of the "drama" of Christ were inspired glimpses of divine truth that would only become fully manifest at an appointed moment and place, viz. in Roman Judea. For these authors, the mythological elements in the story of the Christ do not undermine but rather enhance the transcendental truth of the gospel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C...tive_mythology

For us the "bread and wine' of the last supper was more than just a ritual but has it's significance in the torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. To say that this was borrowed or adapted from earlier religions completely cheapens the true deeper meaning of the event, which was The severe price that He paid atoning for our sins.

Not if we have the real meaning. And I believe we have the right meaning.

Meaning??? Numerology has no place in Christianity.

Not for the book of Revelation. I am talking about symbolic numbers (i.e. 3,7,12, 1000, 144000, etc). I am referring also to the gematria or grammateia for the Greeks (ex: 666 or 616).

Exactly. Crucifixion was the method preferred by the Romans. There is a word for impaling in the Greek. If it were intended to convey that point it would have been used instead of tree, or cross. "Hanging" on a stake or tree would be much closer to crucifixion than impalement.

aneskolopise (gr.): impalement
anaskolopizô (verb): impaling

In ancient Rome, the term "crucifixion" could also refer to impalement. Ancient authors also report the use of "crucifixion" (which may have meant impalement as well) in Carthage, where it was used for extreme cases of treachery and failure on the battlefield, usually combined with other forms of torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impaling

Between you and me, I would have preferred to be crucified than to suffer an impalement.

I don't think it was softened at all. They were both horrible forms of death, especially when you consider the requisite beatings and floggings that preceded the actual execution. Besides, the Holy spirit was the inspiration for the record, not just man's point of view.

Both tortures were horrible. What I dislike is the public exposure of the corpse. Anyway this law is behind us and immoral in our time. That was the life style of the archaic societies.

Trinity

[dave52_47]

[QUOTE=Trinity;1238]

I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.

Trinity,
* NOTE: I tried to post this three times a couple of nights ago and for some reason It wouldn't post . It was really late so I gave up-but-I'll try again now-here goes:

Here is the reply to your origin of 'hell' statement:

Gehenna

NET Glossary: a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew words ge hinnom ("Valley of Hinnom"), the valley along the south side of Jerusalem which in Old Testament times was used for human sacrifices to the pagan god Molech (Jer 7:31; 19:5-6; 32:35), and came to be used as a place where human excrement and rubbish were disposed of and burned; in the intertestamental period, it came to be used symbolically as the place of divine punishment, i.e., hell

Gehenna [EBD]
(originally Ge bene Hinnom; i.e., "the valley of the sons of Hinnom"), a deep, narrow glen to the south of Jerusalem, where the idolatrous Jews offered their children in sacrifice to Molech (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2-6). This valley afterwards became the common receptacle for all the refuse of the city. Here the dead bodies of animals and of criminals, and all kinds of filth, were cast and consumed by fire kept always burning. It thus in process of time became the image of the place of everlasting destruction. In this sense it is used by our Lord in Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5. In these p***ages, and also in James 3:6, the word is uniformly rendered "hell," the Revised Version placing "Gehenna" in the margin. (See HELL; HINNOM.)

GEHENNA [SMITH]
[HINNOM]

GEHENNA [ISBE]
GEHENNA - ga-hen'-a (geenna (see Grimm-Thayer, under the word)): Gehenna is a transliteration from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ge-hinnom, "valley of Hinnom." This latter form, however, is rare in the Old Testament, the prevailing name being "the valley of the son of Hinnom." Septuagint usually translates; where it transliterates the form is different from Gehenna and varies. In the New Testament the correct form is Gee'nna with the accent on the penult, not Ge'enna. There is no reason to ***ume that Hinnom is other than a plain patronymic, although it has been proposed to find in it the corruption of the name of an idol (EB, II, 2071). In the New Testament (King James Version margin) Gehenna occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk 9:43,15,47; Lk 12:5; Jas 3:6. In all of these it designates the place of eternal punishment of the wicked, generally in connection with the final judgment. It is ***ociated with fire as the source of torment. Both body and soul are cast into it. This is not to be explained on the principle that the New Testament speaks metaphorically of the state after death in terms of the body; it presupposes the resurrection. In the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Gehenna is rendered by "hell" (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT). That "the valley of Hinnom" became the technical designation for the place of final punishment was due to two causes. In the first place the valley had been the seat of the idolatrous worship of Molech, to whom children were immolated by fire (2 Ch 28:3; 33:6). Secondly, on account of these practices the place was defiled by King Josiah (2 Ki 23:10), and became in consequence ***ociated in prophecy with the judgment to be visited upon the people (Jer 7:32). The fact, also, that the city's offal was collected there may have helped to render the name synonymous with extreme defilement. Topographically the identification of the valley of Hinnom is still uncertain. It has been in turn identified with the depression on the western and southern side of Jerusalem, with the middle valley, and with the valley to the E. Compare EB, II, 2071; DCG, I, 636; RE3, VI.
Geerhardus Vos

Source: Bible.org

This is the origin of 'hell' according to scripture and history. Both O.T. and N.T. confirm the common use of the term used for the "dump that burned continuously" outside of the city of Jerusalem to apply, as Jesus Himself-as well as His Apostles used it-to refer to a place of eterenal punishment called Hell.

Dave

[Trinity]

Hello Dave,

Originally Posted by dave52_47

This is the origin of 'hell' according to scripture and history. Both O.T. and N.T. confirm the common use of the term used for the "dump that burned continuously" outside of the city of Jerusalem to apply, as Jesus Himself-as well as His Apostles used it-to refer to a place of eterenal punishment called Hell.

That was a good presentation about the terminology of Gehenna. However, I was talking about the distinction between the Sheol and Hades. You can also add the Tartarus because the New Testament speak about this also.

Sheol is not a synonymous of Geheena. In my comprehension the Geheena is a metaphor on an other metaphor mentioned in the book of Revelation: The lake of fire.

"Sheol is sometimes compared to Hades, the gloomy, twilight afterlife of Greek mythology. The word "hades" was in fact subs***uted for "sheol" when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (see Septuagint). The New Testament (written in Greek) also uses "hades" to refer to the abode of the dead.

By the second century BC, Jews who accepted the Oral Torah had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment. This belief is reflected in Jesus' story of Lazarus and Dives. At that time Jews who rejected the Oral Torah believed that Sheol meant simply the grave."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Trinity

[dave52_47]

That was a good presentation about the terminology of Gehenna. However, I was talking about the distinction between the Sheol and Hades. You can also add the Tartarus because the New Testament speak about this also.

Sheol is not a synonymous of Geheena. In my comprehension the Geheena is a metaphor on an other metaphor mentioned in the book of Revelation: The lake of fire.

Trinity,
I was replying to this staement :

I give an example. We the Christians we had borrowed our conceptualization about the hell from the Greeks, and not from the Jews. The sheol is a very boring place, nothing happens there, a real waiting room, a darkness place under the ground. The souls are almost in a state of catalepsy. Otherwise, into the hades, the souls are awake and they can suffer.

That is why I gave the definition for Gehenna (translated as hell in theN.T.- as was shown) and not Sheol. This is the word Jesus used in the gospels. It didn't appear first in Revelation. The concept was not Greek-the language was. The "dump that burned continuosly' was outside of Jerusalem-not Athens.

Dave

[Trinity]

Hi Dave,

Originally Posted by dave52_47

That is why I gave the definition for Gehenna (translated as hell in theN.T.- as was shown) and not Sheol. This is the word Jesus used in the gospels. It didn't appear first in Revelation. The concept was not Greek-the language was. The "dump that burned continuosly' was outside of Jerusalem-not Athens.

I understand, but the word 'gehenna' is not a word employed in the Old Testament for Sheol. This is not a subs***uted word. This is only a place on earth or a site near Jerusalem for the rubbish. The word Sheol has an underworld connotation and not a connotation for a complete annihilation. Also, the Gehenna is not the Hades or the Tartarus. It is a metaphor on a future reality. The Hades and the Tartarus already exist now.

To be more clear the Gehenna is a prophetic allusion about a future state for the souls of the evil men. The word Hades is the subs***ute word for Sheol.

Trinity

[PostTribber]

in the end, Christ will separate the goats from the sheep. good for us, baa-aaa-aaad for them.

[alanmolstad]

what I got out of the whole "New Age"stuff that sweeped acrossthe country in the 90s is, ....

Thats rocks are holy....that small stones that are shiny are holy...that trees are holy and need a hug....that some people can claim to be very old and other people will believe them....that if you write a book with a clever ***le or cover art you can make a lot of money.....that you dont have to be that clever sometimes to fool all the people.....that lots of people want to be gods.....